I think he is a lock to get impeached in the next 12 months. However, I'm in the gambling mood so if anyone is interested in betting I'll bet he doesn't get impeached in the next 12 months at EVEN.

Personally choose carefully, y'all.

It means they believe that Republicans are advocating policies that unjustly **** over the poor in order to benefit the rich; not that they are literally stealing money from the poor.

It is, because everyone agrees and realizes that what I wrote above is what is meant by "Republicans stealing from the poor", not that they are literally taking their money. I mean, I agree people could benefit from not using unspecific language but at the same time everyone should be able to realize this.

No, it isn't, and here's why:

You seem to have this view whereby:
person has X dollars
person makes Y dollars (i.e. through a sale, salary, etc.)
AND THEN
government takes % of Y dollars from person

But it would be more accurate to view it as:
person has X dollars
on sale, salary, etc. of Y dollars, person gets some % of Y dollars, the gov't gets the remaining % simultaneously

Raising taxes on high incomes is no more "taking money from the rich" than lowering them is "taking money from the poor". Like I said, if someone proposes a wealth tax then we can come back to this point.



Hmm right but what if for the last 3 Christmases your parents bought 10 presents but had to give 1 to the government, but now they have to give 2 to the government ?

Fair enough. Ignore that statement of mine then. But it still comes down to definitions of racism. Opposing affirmative action or illegal immigration does not make one racist.

While taxes suck, I see no way in making it better than it is now.

Of course not, but it's much more often about the motivations for opposing those things. I'm not a huge fan of affirmative action myself, and I don't think anyone is really "pro" illegal immigration.

How I (will) grade trump:

Here's what I said in September 2016.

"I'm going to vote for trump because he's likely to try to implement more conservative policies than Clinton would.

I want lower taxes and lowered entitlements.

I want more aggressive foreign policy and a bigger military.

I think Trump is more likely to promote those things, I hope.

I don't care much about the immigration issues."

I didn't end up voting for Trump. I don't live in a swing state, so I didn't have to vote for him with his vile comments about women, and other things. But I will judge him primarily on handling of the war against Islamic extremism and how he deals with taxes and entitlements.

1. Why?

2. Why?

3. As a follow up, if he were successful on (1) and (2), would you overlook any and all other shortcomings?

4. Do you agree there are many such shortcomings?

5. Do you agree that Trump has shown himself dangerously incompetent and unfit for the job, in general, regardless of your agreement or disagreement with his policy goals?

Not seeing impeachment happening. I could see him saying, I am a multi billionaire and this job is just not worth it and walking away.

Elaborate on this idea please.


Bolded is obviously not true.

More government revenue solves more societal problems right?

The impeachable offense is .... da Russians and his complicitness!

Are we talking just impeachment or impeachment and conviction. If the Democrats win the House in 2018 then maybe the House brings articles of impeachment. Don't see the Senate convicting though like ever. If it gets that far and that bad he'll just be a one term POTUS or walk away.

As we said in September 2016, this is an idiotic set of criteria to grade a president on and it doesn't reflect well on you that these are the only criteria that affect your opinion of him.

Like, you thought the comments about women were "vile" yet regardless of how many pussies he's grabbed you will still support him as president, according to the rules you've given, if he is successful at a few garbage things.

You are being intellectually dishonest. Pokerdox didn't claim he would support TRUMP if he sexually assaults women.

pdox is free to tell us if he's finally ready to grade Trump for things beyond the scope of his September post, but until he does, he's still just as deplorable as he was then and as he is now for still supporting Trump after the pussy grabbing comments.

Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation https://nyti.ms/2rnUb1z

Trump in February said "I hope you can let this [investigation] go, he's a good guy." LOL this clown administration, wonder if having any ethics whatsoever is something pdox gives a **** about as long as his taxes go down by 1%

Saying things that are not maximally charitable to right wing views is not dishonesty. You literally rewrote one of wil's pro-police brutality quotes to defend him.

Madcap, for such a liberal guy with a strong contrarian streak it's a little ****ing odd that on each and every issue, especially every issue that has to do with race, you come down on the same side. Like you'd think the party that controls all three branches of government and also the ****ing POLICE might be seen as the authority that needs to be bucked, right? But not ole' Madcap, he's more interested in congratulating Milo for giving the trannies what for on Bill Maher.

For example, look how angry you get with every leftist, and here's how you respond to pokerodox,
You can see how people can deduce from your chummy tone as to which of Victor and which of the 'dox you see as ideological allies, right?

P.S.
There's a reason why the people you picked up this rhetoric from always abstract it instead of applying it to specifics. So please, Madcap, elaborate. Politically useful to who? How is it politically useful? What things that it shouldn't apply to are we talking about here?

To be perfectly clear, I'm translating for bahbah and not espousing the idea myself. However, I would argue that any policy which attempts to reduce the health care access of poors in order to lower taxes is unjustly ****ing over the poor to benefit the rich.

Well, yes, you're right, seeing as how bahbah clearly did not understand it, but it really should be obvious.

Uh, what? This makes absolutely no sense as a response to my post which only explains why raising taxes on high incomes != stealing/taking money from the rich, and doesn't contain any opinions on what the correct level of taxes is.

That being said, uh, yes, sometimes? Sometimes not? It really depends on how the money is spent.

The other post that got deleted said for the purposes of discussion, "horrible idiot racists," isn't accurate and it should read as horrible(selfish/nihilist) and/or idiots(ignorant/low-info) and/or racist(various bigotries).

And that trump has inadvertently codified republicanism as being the party of that above. It didn't have to be this way as France can attest to. Macron stomped because all their moderate right-wingers said, lol F that, to Le Pen. Ours didn't. All those 62mm made a conscious adult decision to pull that lever. And now they're all complicit.

Something like that.

Hey wil,

"I write in defense of beliefs I fear are the least defensible, everything else feels like homework."

Your characterization of me based on what I've written is still obviously way off base to anyone paying attention though.

Definitely.

Calling them all horrible or idiots or racists is not the way forward though. They will just dig in more.

Like, that's just your opinion man.

One of the big difference between France (and most of Europe) vs the USA is that the situation is nowhere near as divisive at a societal level. That makes it far easier and hence far more likely that people will join forces even when it means voting for the other side.

"Mr Trump's advisors submitted a plan to deploy an extra 5,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. Afghan government forces have been losing ground to Taliban insurgents since NATO began scaling back its mission in country in 2011."
The Economist, May 13th-19th, p. 6.

This earns Mr Trump high marks.

My grunch on Le Pen is that her policies are more likely to be racist, so that's why the right didn't come out strong for her. If she was more moderate like Trump she might have won.

1. Lower taxes is just good. Can't even be any disagreement on that. I also believe it creates jobs for everyone including the poor. People tell me Kansas or Nebraska ran an experiment and it came out the other way. lol sample size.

Lower entitlements because whatever you pay people to do, they do more. Pay them to not have a job and they will not have a job, for example. Now, this has to be taken in moderation. I don't want to eliminate all entitlement. Just have less. Look at the flip side of this coin. Are liberals saying there should be infinite taxes and entitlements? I don't think so. Does anyone want 90% taxation and $100,000 per year entitlement to everyone making less than $100,000 per year. No. So it's really just a question of which direction you want to move the scale right now.